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

[Shawn Mulock <gurkha@xxxxxxxx>]

Mike Fortey wrote:

> 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.

Too true, but how many of those shooters spend time on a comfy range and the
rest coursing a gully in the dead of night to get behind the bloke with the
pretty rifle? My Gurkhas may not be as good a shot, but I'll put a fiver
they can do the field craft much better than that shooter with his tweaked
range rifle. They'll come out on top by a wide margin to boot! Besides, just
because one bloke is a better shot does not mean he'll live longer.

> 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.

I still miss the SLR for the above points. The ammo was just bloody heavy.

>  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.

The FTX has a better purpose in keeping the lads sharp for silly bugger
games in the middle of the night. When we got the SA80s we hated the rifle,
but we loved the SUSATs. They did improve night operability by a drastic
margin.

As for the iron sights for the support arms, they are on MP-7s now, If I am
not mistaken...

>
>
> > 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.

I agree with Mike on this as well, We did our work in the dark and inclement
weather. You're in the weather, might as well do something with it while the
bad guy sits in his DP and waits for his relief to arrive. (I dare anybody
to tell me sentry duty in a stage 5 trench (Open & Reinforced) is better
than being on the land!)

>
> > 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.
>

No argument in regards to the skills development and maintenance. Squaddies
have the skills built on a "realistic" course involving everything from
FIBUA to squad level fire at 600m. The test involves a lot of work. From
running and engaging simultaneously to hard entry and engaging to running,
going prone and engaging at various ranges. If you get a chance to check out
the ITC course it is a tough one.

>
> > 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.

We have to consider what the environment was that these soldiers were in. As
well as where they came from. Going from their U.S. hometown to a depot to a
country where everybody hated them to fight in a war nobody wanted back
home.... If my men were in a situation like that, I know I would get nothing
near optimum performance from them. Wall of lead it is. Those men deserved
much better than they got.

>
> > 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.
>

Didn't we defeat a good part of the world with that one? =)

>
> > 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.

SLRs and a few M-16s/M-203s for the SPECFOR operatives. By the by, didn't
the Argies have full autos?

<<<grrrreat snip>>>

S.




__________________________________________________________
Get Premium UNLIMITED Internet Access across CANADA for 
JUST $9.95/MONTH at http://www.get3web.com/?mkid=emt123