As can be seen from the article, myself and Dermot Rooney commented on a draft of this article, while it was still being written.
Point being:
Dr Storr's (former Infantry Lt Col) reasoning as to what creates the desired effects are founded on what weight of high explosive filling needs (0.67kg) to be delivered at what rate (1 rnd per 3 secs), and what consistency (accuracy) to cause shock. If you can find a better way to do that, then you answer the exam question he asks.This article does not pretend that lightweight 75mm field guns
are the answer to every battlefield problem, but it does suggest
a clear, simple way of linking tactical movement and weapons
effect to tactical success. The path lies through surprise,
suppression, neutralisation and destruction; and then via shock
and surprise. It enables us to clarify what kinds of weapons we
need, and why.
Now I'm not sure about those assumptions, for a number of reasons.
Single RRLs have not got the rate of fire. An M67 90mm can fire 10 rounds in a minute and then needs 15 mins cooling off.What do others think about reintroducing something like 90 or 106 recoilless rifles? Perhaps on a Wiesel? Or even something like
Bookmarks