Re: Inaccuracy, was RE: [SG] HAMR

--- Derek Fulton <derekfulton@bigpond.com> wrote:

> Actually the 50 cal. round was in it's first
> incarnation a anti-armour 
> round developed by the Germans in WWI, I can't
> remember the exact details 
> of the round, that book went back to the library.
> The Americans came along 
> liked what they saw and borrowed it.

I'd have to do a bit more research to be sure, but
according to 

http://www.gunnery.net/warwagon/history.html

experience with the the German 13mm round was the
inspiration behind the request for development, but
the copy of the 13mm lost to what was basically a
scaled-up 30-06.  I make no claims as to the accuracy
of this particular website, but it's the first one I
could find that went into the history of the
development of the round.  The point is true about the
intention to use it as an anti-tank rifle round, but
by 1921 (my mistake, I originally said 1920) when the
original incarnation of the .50 cal was type
standardized as the M1921 it was a purely machinegun
round because of the advances of armor tech.  In fact,
to my knowledge, the US is the only major nation that
did not adopt an anti-tank rifle.

Sidenotes:
It has been brought to my attention off-list[1] two
points I should make clear.

1)My initial response to Bob's post was a bit too
heated.  While I stand by the substance of what I
said, I apologize to Bob for the manner in which I
expressed it.

2)It's pretty unclear to most people exactally why I
get so annoyed by this point.  Those who propagate
that myth make two unspoken statements in the way they
express it.  Those points are that a)they are in the
military but have no clear understanding of the legal
implications of the oath that they swore, and that b)
they are willing to violate that oath as they
understand it.	All of Western civilization's
development in the past several hundred years has been
based on the control of the military by civil
government through a series of oaths and laws.	A
soldier[2] willing to violate his oath is the most
dangerous development possible from the point of view
of the continued existence of society.	It's
dangerous, and it's offensive to those of us who try
to serve in as professional a manner as possible. 
Furthermore, Bob's statement was obviously intended to
be semi-humorous.  I don't find stating an intent to
commit what the writer honestly believes to be a
violation of international treaty (and hence as much a
war crime as shooting prisioners or looting civillian
property) to be even slightly funny or humorous.

John

[1]Best way to argue with me. . . for a variety of
reasons which should be obvious upon reflection.
[2]"Soldier" is here being used as shorthand for
"member of military and paramilitary forces, whether
enlisted, commissioned, or holding a warrant and
regardless of branch of service or actual title
(Seaman, Airman, Marine, et al)."

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - live college hoops coverage