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

[Mike Fortey <forteymj@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> > to make reloading faster. Simple optics improve
> the
> > marksmanship of joe infantry. I don't think anyone
> > disagrees with that.
> 
> I do. 

But why?

> Many shooters I know also disagree with it. 

Many hobby shooters? Who enjoy shooting and have spent
a lot of time training and practicing? This isn't how
the armed forces work though. Most hobby shooters are
better on a range than most infantry shooters.

> Optics tends to make
> good shooters better, and lets a bad shooter miss
> with more certainty. 

As I mentioned, the only 'evidence' I can state to
back up my point is the raising of marksmanship
standards in the UK since the advent of SUSAT, despite
a round that is more easily deflected and shorter
ranged, less budget for ammo, less range time, and a
decline in civilian shooters.
Which is fairly solid.

 If
> you want to improve the marksmanship of Joe
> Infantry, spend the money on
> training Joe Infantry, not on giving him a nifty
> scope.

Yes, that is true. However...
Option a) Scope at 200 quid

b) 40 hours on the range = a lot more.

Especially when you look at how 'busy' troops are
these days and how little time they get to spend
on-range. Commanders would rather spend a few days on
FTX than on a nice range somewhere as it's more
effective training, but doesn't really improve
marksmanship.

> 50% at most.  The other 50% of the time, it's dark. 

First hand experience tells me that SUSAT is bloody
good in the dark and an advantage. Docterine supports
me here... UK forces do an awful lot of night work,
despite not being loaded down with II sights.

> Marksmanship skills are with you for as long as
> you've got eyes and a
> trigger finger.

Nothing is a replacement for training of course, but
optics do offer a slight edge. 

> Certainly it has.  In Vietnam, we were firing off
> 50,000 rounds of
> ammunition for each kill.  

And this is good, because?
We've all seen stills of weapons being fired on auto
'above the head' over the top of the trench. This is
hardly a revolutionary step forward in infantry
warfare.

> trying to kill them by
> sheer volume of fire.
> That was simply not possible for an infantry unit
> before the advent of
> assault and battle rifles.

British Colonial troops were nicely versed with wall
of lead tactics 140 years ago.

> Note that I'm not saying the wall-of-lead approach
> is a particularly good
> one. 

In the right place and in the right situation it's
'viable'. However, the introduction of 3 round burst
and semi only weapons perhaps teach us that it's not
very practical from a logistical poitn of view.

> But claiming that the assault rifle didn't
> revolutionize the way
> battles are fought strikes me as pretty specious.

Battles or 'small unit' action?
Hmm *thinking*...Flaklands was a infantry situation
and we didn't have full autos there. 

> I don't buy it.  Before I buy that optics are as
> much of a revolution as
> rifled barrels, I'm going to have to see historical
> evidence. 

What major conflict did rifled barrels change?
They are slower to load and next to impossible to load
from anything but standing position. They were trailed
by many nations and mostly rejected, despite the
100-yard advantage they offered.


> When the
> Gatling gun was introduced, it changed things
> utterly-

I agree. Machineguns were a huge revolution.

> Re: cased cartridges.  They allowed about a fivefold
> increase in rate of
> fire and made ammunition very resistant to the
> elements. 

But they were an evolution of pre-prepared cartridges,
not a revolutionary departure, really. It depends if
were are talking about revolution in invention or
tactics. I assumed the former.

 
> I'd rather save the $300 per SUSAT (or whatever they
> run), and invest it on
> soldiers on the firing range.  

That wouldn't buy much, unfortunatly. Maybe a day or
two at the range.

> Good marksmanship is a necessity;
> optics are a luxury.

In a perfect world, I agree. I would however remind
you of your earlier comments as regards Vietnam...
good marksmanship was not a necessity in that case.

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