Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!uwm.edu!linac,att!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Small Arms
Message-ID: <1991Mar18.140437.22316@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 18 Mar 91 14:04:37 GMT
References: <1991Mar4.212601.9682@cbnews.att.com> <1991Mar7.014859.3212@cbnews.att.com> <1991Mar14.015325.19370@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (william.b.thacker)
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 22
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
>From: cassman@athena.mit.edu (Baby Killer)
>       Full-auto fire has very limited uses. You don't want your ground
>       troops spraying their limited ammo in the air - that is what the
>       M60s and M2s are for. Three-round bursts are even of questionable
>       effectiveness compared to semi-auto fire.

This depends very much on what they are supposed to be effectively doing,
and in particular on whether your model of infantry combat is "ready...
aim... fire!" or "OhMyGodAnAmbushFireFireFire!!!".  The former is the
standard model for the US Army's management in particular, while the latter
is now known to be far more typical of real combat.  In real combat, full
auto saves lives.

As one of the Korean War generals -- I've forgotten who -- observed in
connection with artillery, the more ammunition you ship to the front,
the fewer body bags come back.
-- 
"But this *is* the simplified version   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
for the general public."     -S. Harris |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry