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

["Gareth Livergood" <garethlivergood@xxxxxxxxx>]

> Battles or 'small unit' action?
> Hmm *thinking*...Flaklands was a infantry situation
> and we didn't have full autos there.
>
I seem to remember an article on some African brush war or another.  The
government forces were equipped with FN-FAL, full-auto.  They were expending
huge amounts of ammo and not bagging many guerillas.  The gov couldn't
afford to keep the supply up so they elected to convert the FALs to
semi-only, like the L1-A1.  Shortly thereafter, kill ratios went up and ammo
use went down.  Can't remember if the gov won or not.  Just an example of;
when forced to use the sights, you will actually hit something.
    Here I am playing devil's advocate.  I am for more training and keeping
the full-auto option.  I guess that I just don't like the idea of mechanical
bits taking the place of proper training and discipline.  Unfortunately, in
the current climate of cost reduction and expediency, we will see more of
this.  I am all for giving the soldier as much USEFUL high-tech equipment as
feasible (too much and the poor guy can't move, let alone fight), but I do
want a soldier who is still effective and deadly when all of the high-tech
toys crap out (which they will).
    Ex. US Navy ships, in the age of GPS, still carry and use sextant and
chronometer just in case the electronics fail.