how good were shotguns in jungle combat?

how good were shotguns in jungle combat? seems like this would be one of the few military scenarios where shotguns would be based because it lets you put a lot of lead in the air in an area rapidly like a machine gun would at very close range that you might actually accidently fight someone else in inna jungle

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Shotguns have always been shit at everything but opening doors. The idea that you send nine 9mm rounds towards the enemy in a cone is peak boomer idiocy. Just like their the ar15 has to be cleaned 24/7, the AK is perfect, 308 is all you need and many other urban myths their generation believed in, the shotgun has always been a completely useless weapon in war.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >how good were shotguns in jungle combat?
      good when they were short on SMGs in the 50s, but replaced as soon as more SMGs and select fire carbines were made available

      >The idea that you send nine 9mm rounds towards the enemy in a cone is peak boomer idiocy
      explain why

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Found the German

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/9Z4CqJg.jpeg

      The Jungle forces combatants to fight at very close ranges. You can't see shit beyond 10 meters. Tree trunks and roots will block most bullets. Throwing grenades risks it hitting a tree and bouncing back. Jungle action requires small, fast shooting submachine guns or carbines. Rate of fire and ergonomics are more important than range or penetration power.

      the theory behind using shotguns inna jungle is the same as having the select fire mgs and carbines when someone makes contact with you you mag dump and get as much lead in the air as you can so everyone shooting at you has to put their heads down and stop shooting

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I think pretty much what this anon said, better for jungle fighting than a bolt action or low capacity semi auto like a Garand but not as good as an SMG or carbine.

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Dense foliage turns a lot of that shot in to Red Ryder BBs. Rifle rounds are superior and I'd even go as far to say that .30cal and up ammo works better than any kind of shot or slug you can use in a shotgun. rof and penetration matters more in jungles than how many lead pellets a single shot throughs in the air.

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They were certainly used in that role, but they seem to have faded out in the last half century. Modern examples of jungle warfare (Philippines, South America, Timor, etc) don't seem to involve them at all. My guess is that, since shotgun spread isn't nearly as wide as people think, you're generally better spraying off with a rifle; and you can reload a lot quicker.

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The Jungle forces combatants to fight at very close ranges. You can't see shit beyond 10 meters. Tree trunks and roots will block most bullets. Throwing grenades risks it hitting a tree and bouncing back. Jungle action requires small, fast shooting submachine guns or carbines. Rate of fire and ergonomics are more important than range or penetration power.

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    is that an Auto 5 in thr center?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      No, the filename is a classic prank

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      no, that is a black person

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      no

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They were fine that is why the army did plenty of testing. The testing was cut short by politics and end of the war not lack of effectiveness. As the battlefield changed the weapons needed changed and I assume any emphasis on that sort of testing switched over to AIWS, flechette and other designs intended to increase hit probability or volume of fire.

    I don't think the Stevens 77 contract was an arbitrary choice, there were a fair number of American soldiers training on savage shotguns before they were sent to Vietnam and obviously they sold a lot of shotguns to the civilian market. There is still not a smoother pump to this day, so if you want to increase volume of fire innajungle with a good cadence the Stevens is the way to do it. It stays smooth too. A Mossberg doesn't come close. The completely American stock design on the 77, which is often critiqued is also superior for the role. It kicks the bead sight straight up consistently, rather than the autistic wobble you might get on a Mossberg. I can write a lot more about the 77, in my opinion it is dangerously underappreciated just because savage went a shit mid 70s. I feel I should at least add the 60,000 77Es were intended for the ARVN and GIs stole a lot of them, so many of them it was the most used combat shotgun of the war. You can speculate how.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      also the 77E is the same exact length as a 16 inch rifle, at least with a retractable stock

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I feel like even with buckshot you wouldn't get enough penetration for thick foliage, even 5,56 was abit lacking in penetration in jungle foliage, the 7,62x39 was alot more effective in thick jungle iirc

    In jungle fighting you usually end up spraying and praying through a shitload of vegetation rarely even seeing your enemy even tho they are less then 20m away

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >shitguns

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >day /k/

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >shitguns

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *