Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!bu.edu!att!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: hhm@ihlpy.att.com (Herschel H Mayo)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: M14 vs. M16
Message-ID: <1991Jan12.012820.25531@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 12 Jan 91 01:28:20 GMT
References: <1991Jan8.005433.20692@cbnews.att.com> <1991Jan10.025901.4350@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 21
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: hhm@ihlpy.att.com (Herschel H Mayo)
In article <1991Jan10.025901.4350@cbnews.att.com>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:

> 
> 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. 

I'll say amen to that one. An example which comes to mind is the idiotic
old myth that restricting water intake by the troops hardens them. God
knows how many thousands of soldiers have been put out of action by 
dehydration because of that.  Amazingly, the army has discovered that
soldiers drink water because they need it, and supplied them with
an extra canteen. 

                                                      Larry