ARMS-D-Request@MIT-MC.ARPA (Moderator) (01/11/86)
Arms-Discussion Digest Friday, January 10, 1986 8:06PM
Volume 6, Issue 17.4
Today's Topics:
See 17.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 86 8:33:46 EST
From: Jeff Miller AMSTE-TEI 4675 <jmiller@apg-1>
Subject: Deep Strike
Response to Jim McGrath on Deep Strike:
Jim;
I'm sending this to the digest without forwarding a personal copy because
I can tell instinctively that our mailer here will choke on your address.
The only problem I can see with a Deep Strike strategy is that, if the
Soviets feel we are carrying the battle to their homeland (ala the
Germans in '41), then they might be tempted to launch a preemptive
strike. This risk can be minimized by 1) confining targets to Eastern
Europe (why else do they have a buffer zone?), 2) making sure that
targets are tactical, not strategic (even if they are in the USSR),
and/or 3) communicating these plans to the Soviets so that all sides
will know that both parties want to keep things limited. On the whole
it is a good option to have, and probably to use, if use carefully.
Do the plans now in existence incorporate any of these elements?
I doubt very much whether in our version of the deep strike NATO forces would
penetrate quite so far as the Soviet Union. In the first place, the concept
is not primarily a preemptive attack ( though the option may exist ) so these
attacks would probably be made from hastily stabilized lines during the early
stages of a WP assault.
Objectives would be, as you say, most likely confined to E. Europe, basically
in the rear areas of the WP armies, cutting supply routes, severing
communications, and disrupting the marshalling of the follow-on echelons. It
is still a defensive concept, not a "Drang nach Osten."
J.Miller
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 86 9:20:48 EST
From: Jeff Miller AMSTE-TEI 4675 <jmiller@apg-1>
Subject: Ammunition
From: _Bob <Carter@RUTGERS>
Subject: Automatic weapons
From: Gary Chapman <PARC-CSLI!chapman at glacier>
the M-14. It's full automatic mode
wasn't very impressive, and it was heavy, but it was 10 times more
accurate than the M-16, unbelievably reliable, and it could fire the
same rounds as an AK-47, which meant if you found enemy ammo caches
you could use theirs.
Did you ever try it? Or know anyone who did? Without the cartridge
case rupturing and blowing white-hot powder gas back into his face?
The standard AK round is the 7.62x39mm M1943. The M-14 is chambered
for 7.62x51mm NATO. Shooting theirs in ours would give excessive
headspace of 11 millimeters.
The maximum safe headspace tolerance (the difference between "go" and
"no-go" gauges) for the M-14 is .004 inches, just about two orders of
magnitude less than you recommend.
>> A double AMEN to Bob Carter. As a Technical Intelligence unit commander, I
constantly received inquiries, many from units which would have occasion to
use foreign weapons, as to the veracity of the 7.62mm interchangeability myth.
The answer is absolutely negative. Another Vietnam era myth concerned the
Soviet 12.7mm DShK heavy machinegun, popularly known to the GIs as the ".51
cal". The myth went; you can use US .50 cal ammo in the ".51" in a pinch,
because it would fit in the slightly larger caliber chamber. Unfortunately,
the ammo will not seat in the DShK chamber, and the caliber is not larger -
12.7mm = .50 cal. There is no ".51cal."
There is some bizarre fascination with soldiers regarding interchanging
ammo. It culminated several years ago when soldiers in Ft Hood Tx, training
on ComBloc RPG (rocket propelled grenade) launchers, managed to seat ( and it
took some doing,) a PG-7 round in an RPG-2 launcher. ( The PG-7 is supposed to
be fired from an RPG-7 and is too powerful for the RPG-2 ) The result was a
young soldier being killed.
As I think back the only true interchangeability I can recall was the M-38
type Soviet and Chinese 82mm mortar which could digest most standard US and
NATO 81mm mortar bombs.
J.Miller
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 86 10:46:16 GMT
From: Nick Jones <ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!mcvax!prlvax4.uucp!jonesn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: Arms-Discussion Digest V6 #12.1
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 86 11:29:57 EST
From: Herb Lin <LIN@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: SDI Testing
From: Jim McGrath <J.JPM at Epic>
Herb Lin just replied in Arms-d to a message I send to him and the
Risks mailing list. Unfortunately, it was not sent to the Arms-d
mailing list. Thus people got a chance to read a reply before seeing
the original (which is in a follow up message).
oops.
------------------------------
End of Arms-Discussion Digest
*****************************