Re: [SG2] AGL vs SAW

Where I would prefer a SAW:

Close-in terrain where the arming distance of the grenades (or the
possibility 
of "friendly fire") precludes using an AGL.

Mobile operations without mechanized assets.  They're big, heavy, and
designed 
to fire either from a mount or tripod, so they're slow to deploy. 
Unless 
you're gonna give the AGL to a power-armored trooper, then he could keep
up 
and still fire snap-shots if that's how your PSB for powered troops
goes.

Missions with a high chance of non-combattants being stuck in the
crossfire.  
It's hard to really _aim_ a grenade.

Anytime re-supply is likely to become an issue.  AGL's have bulkier ammo
than 
machine guns, but when ROE's allow their liberal use, tend to eat that
ammo 
just as fast as MG's.  So that makes it easier to re-supply MG's since
their 
ammo contains more rounds in a smaller space.

On Tuesday 28 October 2003 3:42 pm, laserlight@quixnet.net wrote:
> Okay, the AGL is wonderful -- for what circumstances would you prefer
a
> SAW?
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> http://mail2web.com/ .

-- 
--Tim
http://geocities.com/flakmagnet72
"Who draws his sword against the Prince,
best throw away the scabbard." early 17th Century English Proverb