RE: Rail guns (was: US SOCOM desires...)

[Mike Fortey <forteymj@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Not necessarily--see my sidebar about the Navy's
> experience with laser
> sights.  

That's lasers...not optics. That's kind of like
comparing cased rounds with magazines...both are there
to make reloading faster. Simple optics improve the
marksmanship of joe infantry. I don't think anyone
disagrees with that.

> Low-power optics are useful in certain
> situations, yes,

Hmm...I would say that they are useful in 99% of
situations. Even a 30 round box magazine is a pain 1%
of the time though, too.

> but they
> aren't going to revolutionize warfare the way
> self-contained cartridges, the
> Maxim gun, etc., did.

Probably not, no. Night vision sights will/have
though.

Even the assault rifle hasn't really changed infantry
tactics in a revolutionary manner. Neither did rifles
either, really... their disadvantages outweighed the
advantages for all except spec. forces equivelent
infantry.
 
> The thread is about revolutionary technologies--not
> evolutionary ones.

Hang on... optics are as much a revolution as rifled
barrels. And cased rounds were very evolutionary,
really.

> > Would you turn down an edge if you were the
> commander?

> because
> there were other factors
> which made them more of a liability than an asset.

That's not really applicable. Would you turn down
every Infantry M-16 in US inventories having SUSAT?
 
I am aware that you're an iron sights fan, but can you
understand where we're coming from?

Mike

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com