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

[Mike Fortey <forteymj@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Optics are not a replacement for training. In fact,
> they are only really
> useful to very well-trained troops. 

Hmmm. I agree about the training. I'm not too sure
about only being useful to 'very' well trained troops.
I much prefer optics on a longarm and always have. I
find it easier to both find and hit things. 'How'
someone is trained probably has a major bearing.

In UK armed forces, SUSAT is only dished out to
infantry [who supposedly spend the time on range].
Other arms use iron sights.

> Not SAS-caliber
> here, but far more than
> Joe Territorial who plays soldier one weekend a
> month 

Joe Territorial's job varies depending on unit. Joe
Territorial infantry badged passes the same APWT as
Mr. Full-Timer. Typically, TA troops attend training
one night per week and go on FTX about one weekend in
two. In addition they spend 2 weeks minimum on larger
excersises a year. I know several TA guys who lost
their day-jobs and went off to active posts alongside
regular forces for a few months.

> by filing papers in
> his local Army office and hasn't touched a rifle
> since he went through
> Basic.

Most infantry Regiments in UK service now have TA
battalions. These are infantry troops and some are
even assigned to fast response brigades. The SAS has
several Territorial squadrons.

> Optics aren't revolutionary.  Otherwise, we would've
> seen it revolutionize
> battles.  We haven't.
> 
> Hobby and military shooters both.  On the military
> front...

To be fair, these sound like people who 'also' shoot
for fun. 

> 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. 

This applies to every firearms advance though. Rifles
were initially only issued to the best shots, as were
optics et al.

> 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.

Or give your infantry the kit from basic so that it
familiar, rather than forcing a 'relearning'
 

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

Hmm. Well, it hasn't changed battles since then
really. As I mentioned, several things have been
developed to STOP this kind of ammunition use.

> 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. 

but the 'tactic' of shooting as fast as possible and
hoping to hit with infantry weapons was well
esablished, was my point.

 > > 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.

No. Absolutly not. I cannot see how it would have.
We won many firefights because we stressed accuracy
over volume. A quick look at a map shows the length of
supply we had. The UK was very, very lucky that the
OPFOR used 7.62mm.

> > What major conflict did rifled barrels change?
> 
> Try the United States Civil War.

I'm not an expert on that period, I'm afraid. Wasn't
it more the fact that the rifled weapons were
repeaters that made the difference?
The only example that I can think of when rifles were
used against comparable smooth-bores were tha
Napoleonic wars, and they were trialed but not
generally used for reasons earlier described.

 

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