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

["Robert J. Hansen" <rjhansen@xxxxxxxx>]

> But why?

Let me repeat, Mike.  Optics makes good shooters better, and lets bad
shooters miss with more certainty.

Optics are not a replacement for training. In fact, they are only really
useful to very well-trained troops.  Not SAS-caliber here, but far more than
Joe Territorial who plays soldier one weekend a month by filing papers in
his local Army office and hasn't touched a rifle since he went through
Basic.

Optics aren't revolutionary.  Otherwise, we would've seen it revolutionize
battles.  We haven't.

> Many hobby shooters? Who enjoy shooting and have spent
> a lot of time training and practicing? This isn't how

Hobby and military shooters both.  On the military front, there's Soon to be
Sergeant, an Army friend of mine who's an MP serving on a tactical firearms
team.  Gunny, who's forgotten more about weapons than I'll ever know.
Charlie Tuna, the Chicken of the Sea, so named because he's a Naval commando
who hates water.  Captain Phil, who until a grievous shotgun injury a few
years ago was the leader of the local police tactical firearms team.  I've
heard from all of those fellows at one point or another that they question
the value of putting scopes on every single blessed thing, for exactly the
reason mentioned above.  Optics are very useful to *good shooters*, yes.
But before you go about putting an ELCAN/ACOG on every blessed thing, you'd
better make sure everyone who's issued one is a good shooter.  And in the US
Armed Forces, currently, only the Marine Corps still puts an emphasis on
making sure every single Marine is a good shooter.

If a trooper can qualify as Expert on a USMC 500m range, sure, give that man
an ACOG.  If a trooper's having a hard time qualifying, period, don't give
him an ACOG because it won't make him any more effective.

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

Slight edge, fine, that I can agree with.

But a slight edge is not the same thing as being "as revolutionary as the
rifled cartridge".

> And this is good, because?

Please read my post.  It's not a good thing, but it was unarguably a
revolutionary change in the way battles were fought.

> 'above the head' over the top of the trench. This is
> hardly a revolutionary step forward in infantry
> warfare.

Please read my post.  It's not a revolutionary step forward.  It is,
however, a revolutionary change.  Just not one for the better.

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

The only device the British Army had in the 1870s which could put out such a
monstrously huge rate of fire was the Gatling gun, and that was a
crew-served weapon used in fixed emplacements.  A company of troops armed
with single-shot rifles cannot put out a wall of lead the same way a company
of troops armed with assault rifles can.  A single-shot rifle might be able
to put out ten volleys in a minute.  An assault rifle can put out a couple
of hundred rounds in a minute on full auto.  It's an order of magnitude
difference.

> Hmm *thinking*...Flaklands was a infantry situation
> and we didn't have full autos there.

And if you'd had them, the tactics would have been substantially different.

> What major conflict did rifled barrels change?

Try the United States Civil War.

> 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, we /lost/ Vietnam.