Well we can agree on the advantage of opitics espiecially if it's the new Aimpoint that doesn't need batteries.
However, I fight this point that the weapons don't affect basic doctine all day long. I even asked a question about it in another post. The problem is that it has affected the training and tactics of other countries. The Russians and the Chinese for examples. The Chinese are going through a renaissance of their Infantry tactics since they've cut their dependance on Russian operational doctrine. They are building a new military in all areas, in all directions. However for their Infantry they are creating small units that fight at 400m-500m and their infantry cartridge and rifle is suppose to defeat body armor at those Ranges. This plus a new range of support weapons like their new Multi shot grenade launcher, could put our troops at a serious disadvantage. If an infantryman's fighting tool is so unimportant, was is?
I'll ask a question I asked a person today. What area of combat did you prove this to be true? I'm not being an *ssh*le nor am I despariging your record or experiences. But there seems to be a disconnect between the small unit commanders and the bureaucracy. I see no discussion between levels of command about what our basic operational policy is and can it be made better.
Yes but that is becoming more and more questionable. Yes, the prenetration of cover is important. But multiple small calliber hits are showing a certain weakness. There are more and more stories from troops in the field where are getting good hits and the enemy combatant still is capable of firing. Or as one special incident that I got a paper on a few weeks ago. The shortness of the range of the 5.56 round when fired from a IFV meant that try as they may they couldn't hit the enemy effectively. The enemy was quickly reinforced and only the IFV's abillity to speed away saved them from the RPGs shot at them.
Maybe in rural Afganistan, but in the neighborhoods of Afganistan and Iraq, it really does have its limitations. As the Russians found in Cheznia, only boots on the ground had the capability of knockingout the Cheznians hunter-Killer groups. Of course, they also found out that their Contract Soldier program showed no advantages over conscription. In the final result it was the SOG groups that did the actual fighting.
First I would like to see the report that these figures come from. They counter what I have seen. However, I live in a dream world that makes it hard to get different views. However, it is unusual that my reports minimize the effects of fragmentation of the SS109/M855 round. This is possible because the latest information I have was a study done on pigs. Cartridge effects is a real science but it seems that we try to turn it into black magic.
As for the length of time that a combatant is effective after being shot and the onset of incapacitation is one of the most controversal parts of determining the effectiveness of a particular cartridge. The Army seems to more interest in keeping the status quo then actually doing tests on the soldiers in the field complaints. I'm not saying they're wrong but nowadays it seems the there is a lot of bias in the reports I read.
Bookmarks