Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnews!cbnews!military From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: M14 vs. M16 Message-ID: <1991Jan10.025901.4350@cbnews.att.com> Date: 10 Jan 91 02:59:01 GMT References: <1991Jan8.005433.20692@cbnews.att.com> Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker) Organization: U of Toronto Zoology Lines: 45 Approved: military@att.att.com From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: efulsang@ads.com (Ejner Fulsang) >... By contrast, an M14-equipped soldier would >normally only carry 200 rounds or so. My own response to this is that >the tendency of most M16 shooters is to use the weapon like a garden >hose instead of a rifle... This is not necessarily a vice. The US Army has long had a fetish for ammunition conservation, and one can argue fairly persuasively that this has killed a lot of US soldiers. The question is not whether M16-armed troops use more ammunition, but whether they survive better and accomplish their missions better. There is substantial evidence that the ability to put *lots* of firepower onto a target in a big hurry when surprised is an important survival characteristic. >... 3) the Viet Nam experience taught that most of the time you >couldn't see the target anyway, so you used your rifle as an area fire >weapon hosing down where you thought the source of enemy fire came >from. My understanding is that studies of infantry combat from the Franco-Prussian war onward show very clearly that almost all rifle fire is mainly directed at keeping the other guy's head down. This is anathema to the "make every shot count" folks, but it is the way the world really works in combat. This actually points to a more general problem: part of the M14-vs-M16 war has been a battle between the traditional beliefs of the US Army and the results from studies of what really happens in combat. The Army has found it very difficult to accept that a good many of its cherished beliefs are myths, unrelated to the real world and harmful to its soldiers and its missions. (Lest I be thought prejudiced :-), the Navy and the Air Force have similar problems and have been going through similar battles.) >As for short range combat potential, the M14 offers no disadvantage so >long as you are adept at snap-shooting... What fraction of soldiers can be trained to become adept at snap-shooting in a reasonable amount of time, using average rather than exceptional instructors? Aesthetically displeasing though it may be, weapons that do *not* require adept users tend to win more wars. -- If the Space Shuttle was the answer, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology what was the question? | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry