Re: [GZG] Failed to deliver the first time - SG 2

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn 10/10/06, Adrian
<adrian@stargrunt.ca> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
> >Working on having each SG2 force a 'bit different' in equipment...
> >
> >I see the a 9 possible combination for fire arms:
> >
> >1. LTAR and SAW
> >2. LTAR and Rotary SAW
> >3. LTAR and Gauss SAW (?!?)
> >4. AAR and SAW
> >5. AAR and Rotary SAW
> >6. AAR and Gauss SAW (??)
> >7. Gauss AR and SAW (??)
> >8. Gauss AR and Rotary SAW (?)
> >9. Gauss AR and Gauss SAW
> >
> >Which, if any, of these strike you as an 'out of line' (ignoring $$
cost
> >in Real Life) combination for a platoon?
>
> None of them are really "out of line" per se, but a couple are a bit
iffy.
>
> If you're arming your forces with a low tech assault rifle, why are
you
> giving them gauss SAW (which would be higher tech and presumably
higher
> cost).  If you had the tech base (or the economic base) to provide
gauss
> SAW, why not gauss AR also?
>
> In other words, I'd cut out numbers 3 and 6.

Examples of these combinations show up in history, probably the most
> relevant being German Armed forces in WW2.

The Fallschirmjaeger (FJ - or paratroops) had a moderately complicated,
highly crafted MG called the FJ42.  It was clip (20 rounds) or drum-fed
(50
rounds) and performed adequately.  The Regular army had the MG34 -
belt-fed
with fire rates up to 800 rounds per minute, highly reliable and fewer
parts
than the FJ42.	Why would the FJ use such an expensive, mediocre weapon
when
their standard infantry weapon was a semi-automatic carbine or a simple
SMG
(MP40)?

The primary reason was interservice rivalry - The FJ were under
Luftwaffe
control while the rest of the infantry was under Army Control.	The FJ
eventually converted to the MG34 and later MG-42 because the FJ was too
costly and time-consuming to build in any large quantity.

The Germans had the technology to build superior assault rifles for many
years (fully auto weapons shooting cut-down rifle rounds, rather than
pistol
rounds), but were hindered by objections from the top.	Hitler objected
to
development of the assault rifle because he thought it a waste of
resources,
the designers proceeded anyway and hid it under the cover name MP44
(Machinepistol 44 or submachine gun 44).  After development was
completed
and Hitler shown the effectiveness of the weapon, he changed his mind
and
allowed it to be put into production as the StG44 (Sturmgeweher 44 or
'storm' or assault rifle 44).  That design was the basis for the AK-47
which
has been in use for nearly 60 years.

So just because a country has the technology, industrial base,
intellectual
capacity etc. to design, build and distribute a high-tech weapon system
doesn't mean that it will.  Because of political or institutional
stubborness a highly-effective system can be hindered from deployment,
or an
overly complicated, expensive system fielded despite its battlefield
performance.

--Binhan