Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military
From: davecb@nexus.yorku.ca (David Collier-Brown)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: posting on small arms development
Message-ID: <11710@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 25 Nov 89 04:04:38 GMT
References: <11597@cbnews.ATT.COM> <11699@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: York U. Computing Services
Lines: 37
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: davecb@nexus.yorku.ca (David Collier-Brown)

In article <11597@cbnews.ATT.COM>, climber@sol.UVic.CA writes:
> Has anyone discussed this with those that would actually be involved
> (like some soldiers)?  How do they feel?  

  As a certified coward, lousy shot and ex-infantryman, I'd like a
weapon with 
	1) reasonable penetration for house-to-house fighting
	2) stability-of-round for use in wooded areas
	3) commonality of ammunition with the section lmg, and
	4) accuracy for aimed fire at groups of persons at
	   light-mg ranges.

  The last is a bit contentious: I'm talking about accuracy at
above 300 yards, the maximum range at which  **I** can reliably hit
a kneeling-man-shaped target.  I claim that at that range or longer
I and my fellows can get enough rounds into a larger area to make it
inadvisable for enemy to pour out of a carrier in the usual "clot".
  This means that something other than just the section lmg & company
mmgs can be used to force the attacker to dismount at long range and
advance on foot.

  In the attack, the extra accuracy is of little use. In defense, its
valuable.  

  This tends to imply a heavier, clumsier weapon, and a bit heavier
ammunition load.  Alas, war is as much about making tradeoffs as cs is.

--dave
-- 
David Collier-Brown,  | davecb@yunexus, ...!yunexus!davecb or
72 Abitibi Ave.,      | {toronto area...}lethe!dave 
Willowdale, Ontario,  | Joyce C-B:
CANADA. 416-223-8968  |    He's so smart he's dumb.