Re: HIGH TECH WONDER INDIVIDUAL WEAPON

At 8:04 AM -0800 2/2/02, John Atkinson wrote:
>private with a GT 95).  Javelin isn't quite as
>complicated either--and frequently goes deadline
>anyway.

I was thinking about this this morning. I think you are 
underestimating the current technology in fuzing. Arms makers have 
been making things small for years. This just seems like a next step.

>God, but you sound like a 2LT.  "I read it in a book
>so it must be TRUE!"  That's been the theme of a lot
>of your posts over the past.

And you sound like a crusty old E-5 who can't see past what he used 
and that all things new are going to be crap. You're right. ATK 
doesn't know shit about armaments manufacture. They certainly don't 
know anything about fuzing in small packages.

>Radars are pretty simple.  Now.  What was the failure
>rate in WWII?

Walk, crawl, run. This is a test prototype. They're running it 
through R&D a few more times before the grunts really see them.

>
>You keep telling me it's got anti-armor capability.  I
>point out that it MIGHT take a BRDM, but not anything
>bigger.  And if I've got BRDMs running around, then a
>.50 cal has quite adequate anti-armor capability.  As
>for reaching behind cover, Mk-19s or M-203s do quite
>fine, thank you.  And yes, in my platoon there are two
>.50 cals, and 2 Mk-19s.  What more do I need,
>especially while running around on a breach?

And if you really were paying attention you'd know that the .50 and 
Mk19 were likely going to be replaced by the OCSW firing in 25mm, at 
fewer rounds to hit and less ammo to carry around to combat units.

On a breach, probably not. But I'd expect that the Speed bump types 
would like more firepower. 82nd and 101st would benefit greatly from 
this kind of additional firepower.

--
Ryan Gill	  |	   |	     rmgill@mindspring.com
		  |	   |
		  | O--=-  |
		  |_/|o|_\_|
		  / 00DA61 \
	       _w/|=_[__]_= \w_
	      |: O(4) ==    O :|
	      |---\________/---|
	       |‰|\	    /|‰|
	       |‰|=\______/=|‰|