Prev: RE: [FT] Min'n'Match Fighters Next: RE: [FT] New weapon system..sort of?

Re: HIGH TECH WONDER INDIVIDUAL WEAPON

From: "Brian Bilderback" <bbilderback@h...>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 16:50:21 -0800
Subject: Re: HIGH TECH WONDER INDIVIDUAL WEAPON

John Atkinson wrote:

>1)In real combat units[*] we use M-16s, with a handful
>of M-4s.

I am SO going to ID myself as a civvie here - what is the M-4?

In my current unit, it's PL, PSG, etc.	In
>Germany we had more, so we issued them to vehicle
>crewmen as well.  The M-4 is a carbine.  It has a role
>as the weapon of people who have things to do in a
>firefight other than put rounds onto the enemy.  Now
>they want to take away the M-16 entirely and replace
>it with a carbine with a high-tech grenade launcher
>that probably won't work anyway.

If it ain't fixed, it must be broken, right?  The Gee Whiz syndrome
strikes 
again.

>
> > Front like combat soldiers tend to have them. If
> > they had the ability
> > to handle light anti-armor rounds as well, they'd be
> > happier I think.
>
>Right.  A 20mm low velocity grenade?  That's going to
>kill what, a BRDM maybe??  Yipee.  I'm just not
>enthused or convinced that it would represent a major
>improvement over a 40mm grenade.

Just from casual observation, I had a funny feeling that a REDUCTION of 
launched grenade size was a BAD thing.	I'm glad to see I'm not entirely
off 
on that count.

> > Remember the whole reason of the OICW is that it
> > reduces the need for
> > other anti-armor rounds and gives a better ranged
> > grenade capability.
>
>You'll still need AT-4s to kill anything bigger than a
>BRDM.	And I ain't worried about BRDMs because if the
>enemy's scouts aren't dead by the time I get to the
>fight, someone's done something deeply wrong.

Again, just my UNQUALIFIED observation, but it sounds from the
conversation 
that the 20mm grenades are BARELY anti-armor capable.  I apply this
concept 
to the rest of life, it seems applicable to military issues as well -
just 
BARELY being able to do something seems like a bad goal to set,
especially 
since things always tend to get harder.

>John
>
>[*]Defined as:  Units who's primary mission is to
>engage the enemy with small arms or who do so as an
>adjunct to performing their primary mission.

Shouldn't non-REAL-combat units get at least a SMATTERING of Combat
arms, in 
case that "Something deeply wrong" happens?

2B^2

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 


Prev: RE: [FT] Min'n'Match Fighters Next: RE: [FT] New weapon system..sort of?