cga66@ihlpy.att.com (Patrick V Kauffold) (08/29/90)
From: cga66@ihlpy.att.com (Patrick V Kauffold) >From article <1990Aug28.042809.29352@cbnews.att.com>, by Thomas.Farmer@actrix.co.nz (Thomas Farmer): > > > > > How else does one test weapons in the battlefield without having a > battlefield? The situation in Iraq is a golden opportunity for the > battlefield testing of arms and systems. > To clarify and expand: the problem today with many high-tech weapons is that they are so expensive that the troops hardly have any experience in using them under (near) battlefield conditions. For example, one of the Apache squadrons armed with Hellfire anti-tank missiles had fired exactly 3 warshots; I suspect these were fired under near ideal conditions (so as not to waste any). I think this is generally true for today's newer weapons; the more expensive the weapon is, the fewer will be used in practice, and this means that the troops go into battle pretty much as virgins with the weapons on which they are depending for their lives. Firing experience at Aberdeen != battlefield expectations. There are just too many historical examples of weapons failing to live up to expectations to think that our high-tech arsenal is going to be so highly effective as to virtually guarantee success. At least they are not depending on the Sgt. York! (But ... they are depending on the Patriot ...)