Re: FW: Underwater weaponry

[Mike Fortey <forteymj@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Second, is the 
> unlikeness of underwater confrontations. 

...and you wouldn't want to have to take two weapons
into the shower...err...water, I mean

> Visibility, especially at night 
> when most specops are in the water, is often little
> more then arms length.  

VERY much depends on where you are...rather a blanket
statement to make, but often true.

> Under those conditions it is easy to avoid an enemy

  Not really... after all, they will be detecting you
at the same time as you detect them, and there isn't
much cover in blue-out conditions... and movement in
water at night draws the eye even more due to
phospherence around the fins. Underwater ops actually
have a small radius (such as the hull of a ship in
harbour) and the chance of running into defensive
divers in such circumstances can be quite high.

> or if necessary to 
> eliminate, use a knife or any of several lethal
> anti-shark devices.

That's a very messy thing to do and risky - even for a
skilled diver. Also remember that offensive dive teams
will be carrying a payload of charges or terra-frima
based stores and probably wearing bulkier
re-breathers, while defensive divers are free to use
less gear and compressed air.

> Underwater weapons 
> were primarily intended for missions where the
> operators would not be 
> breaking the surface, mining and planting listening
> devices being the most 
> likely.
> 

...And defensive missions... patrolling harbour gates,
checking dams and hulls for charges and divers, etc.

> Most swims to shore
> are usually going to be 
> from CRRCs or RIBs less then a klick offshore so
> waterproof bags are not 
> necessary.

Yeah...a klick would be a very long swim indeed.

Mike


____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk
or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie