I know but I'm also old and cyncial...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fuchs
...It's difficult to see the mechanical strength of a design without knowing details and having very much experience in this specialty.
True and the Tripods may end up as the best thing to come from this.
Even the M240L, properly placed will be okay. I'm just unduly cynical regarding US procurement practices as too much is politically (internal, US Domestic external -- and even foreign policy external) driven for my taste...
Quote:
It IS advisable (or at least a debatable option) to reduce weight and durability (not totally the same as reliability) IF you assume that the hardware won't be used much.
Yep. Good examples are the Mk 46 and Mk 48 -- they're fine for SOF intermittent use, not tough enough to be fully reliable for for normal infantry wear and tear. Same is likely true with the M240L, it'll serve it's current purpose then die...:wry:
5-20% shots hit the target in training
IMHO a "gem" from KoW.
I think this passage fits in here, although it is a general comment on firearms training and not Afg. specific. It is specific to the British Army today, with my emphasis:
Quote:
For example, they have identified that just 5 to 20 percent of shots have been hitting the target during live fire tactical training, a stunningly low figure. They have identified why this occurs (firing training is often viewed as box ticking exercise) and why it matters (COIN campaigns require precision shooting to ensure we accurately hit the targets we want to and avoid collateral damage against non-combatants). They have even thrown a little history into the mix: drawing a fascinating parallel between the recognition of low small arms expertise during the Boer War, the subsequent focus on firing training afterwards, and the high quality of the British Expeditionary Force in 1914.
Link to the source article which covers a far wider topic and the citation is within the second author's comments:http://kingsofwar.org.uk/2012/02/no-...-were-british/