Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: xrtnt@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Nigel Tzeng)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: M14 vs. M16
Message-ID: <1991Jan15.022540.25149@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 15 Jan 91 02:25:40 GMT
References: <1991Jan8.005433.20692@cbnews.att.com> <1991Jan10.025901.4350@cbnews.att.com> <1991Jan12.012923.25597@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center - Greenbelt, MD, USA
Lines: 51
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: xrtnt@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Nigel Tzeng)
In article <1991Jan12.012923.25597@cbnews.att.com>, efrethei@blackbird.afit.af.mil (Erik J. Fretheim) writes...
^ 
^ 
^From: efrethei@blackbird.afit.af.mil (Erik J. Fretheim)
^ 
^One of the reasons for going to the M-16 and its automatic fire 
^capabilities that has not been discussed is the results of a number 
^of surveys taken during and after WWII and Korea.  These showed that
^the probability of a soldier having actually fired his weapon in 
^combat was directly related to his proximity to an automatic weapon.  At
^that time, the squad machine gun.  The solution, of course, is to put an
^automatic weapon right in everybodies hand.  Thereby you shorten the
^distance to the nearest automatic weapon and increase the probability
^he will fire the thing in combat.

Eh?  The few things I've seen about this seems to say that the closer you are
to the reassuring bang of a MG the less likely that you are to stick you head
up to fire your own rifle.  I recall that this lead to the theory of placing
the squad automatic weapons on the sides of your units and concentrating the
riflemen in the center.  With no one else making reassuring noise the riflemen
are obligated to generate their own ;-).

There was a post WWII study on which types of soldiers were more effective in
their fire.  It turned out that soldiers armed with BARs (or any other type of
automatic weapons) fired more often and were more likely to aim than soldiers
armed with rifles.  This was because most figured out if they weren't doing
their job the more likely it was that the whole squad would get axed.  The
incentive for someone with a normal rifle was a little less...after all the guy
with the Browning is doing most of the killing anyway...

Now that everyone can bang away (in bursts at least) these studies aren't quite
as relevant anymore.  One can postulate that guns that make lots of noise are
more appreciated by the troops though ;-).  It does seem to support the popular
belief that most fire is used just to keep the other guys head down while the
few people on your side willing to stick their head up to aim can hit them.


^ 
^Erik J Fretheim
^efrethei@afit.af.mil			AFIT/ENA Box 4151 (ATTN: CPT FRETHEIM)

NT

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   // | Nigel Tzeng - STX Inc - NASA/GSFC COBE/SMEX Project
 \X/  | xrtnt@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov or xrtnt@vx730.gsfc.nasa.gov
      | 
Amiga | Standard Disclaimer Applies:  The opinions expressed are my own.