No. It actually requires a lot more. The concept of a counter-blast recoilless weapon, the perceived tactical need, the engineering skills to develop a working device.
Sigh. I suggest you study the historical attempt to 'cash out'. The outflow of gold would have trashed the US economy, which was already in recession in 1914. And while the Entente needed to purchase 'stuff' from the USA, having the gold and not having to rely on the US controlled banking system would make them far more able to dictate terms.
I take it you've accepted the idea of a revolver firing the .351 carbine round is ridiculous then?
1. But not impossible, as before. Goddard had an Ur-Bazooka in 1918
2.So what does the Entente do when the US is an economic wasteland, and gets no ammo, no food and no horses in 1915?
Doesn't look promising as the Shell Crisis hits. But they weren't stupid, and didn't pull evry ounce of Gold from NY
3.Actually,, all pistols are ridiculous for Army service. Really. They just don't matter
Just here you have a trusted, reliable revolver design, that can take the same ammo as another squad, and solves the
'Too puny to stop hopped up Moros' that 38 Long Colt had from the recent Army experience, yet in areas where Moros
are scarce, can use that lesser ammo, so NCO and Offices can get the ego boost of wearing a Big Iron on their hip
