anthony@uunet.UU.NET (Anthony Lee) (12/08/89)
From: munnari!batserver.cs.uq.oz.au!anthony@uunet.UU.NET (Anthony Lee) The other night I was watching the news about the conflict in Lebanon and I started thinking about the use of automatic weapons. When I said automatic weapons, I meant automatic rifles, like the M16 and the AK47. Everytime I watched the news I always see soldiers using M16 (and AK47) spraying bullets in all directions. I feel that it is just a waste of bullets because they are only doing it to keep the enemies down and in many cases hitting unfortunate civilans who happened to be nearby. The question I proposed is that if in any conflict both sides were only given semiautomatic weapons then I feel the chances for civilan cauasilties would be lower. Anthony Lee (Humble PhD student) (Alias Time Lord Doctor) ACSnet: anthony@batserver.cs.uq.oz TEL:(+617) 3712651 Internet: anthony@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au (+617) 3774139 (w) SNAIL: Dept Comp. Science, University of Qld, St Lucia, Qld 4067, Australia
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (12/11/89)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: munnari!batserver.cs.uq.oz.au!anthony@uunet.UU.NET (Anthony Lee) >... always see soldiers using M16 (and AK47) spraying >bullets in all directions. I feel that it is just a waste of bullets >because they are only doing it to keep the enemies down and in many cases >hitting unfortunate civilans who happened to be nearby. Combat is immensely wasteful of munitions, and always has been. The vast majority of all bullets fired, even in the days of bolt-action rifles, were to make the other guy keep his head down and to interfere with his operations in general. Precision marksmanship is rarely seen in combat except when specialists like trained snipers are involved. And a war zone has always been a very dangerous place for civilians, as witness a certain Iranian airliner... >The question I proposed is that if in any conflict both sides were only >given semiautomatic weapons then I feel the chances for civilan cauasilties >would be lower. The chances for civilian casualties would be still lower if both sides were armed only with rocks and clubs. However, it wouldn't be very popular with the soldiers. Fully automatic weapons are extremely popular with the troops for two reasons. One is emergencies: when ambushed or otherwise caught off guard, being able to reply with *lots* of fire can be a lifesaver. The other is training: really expert soldiers, e.g. the British Army at the start of WW1, can get astonishing results with bolt-action rifles, but ill-trained militia, e.g. most of the folks involved in Lebanon, fight better when weapons are easier to use. You will find very few soldiers displaying any enthusiasm for reducing the effectiveness of their weapons in hopes of protecting stray civilians. Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
pmorriso@uunet.UU.NET (Perry Morrison MATH) (12/12/89)
From: munnari!gara.une.oz.au!pmorriso@uunet.UU.NET (Perry Morrison MATH) In article <12172@cbnews.ATT.COM>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: > > > From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) > >From: munnari!batserver.cs.uq.oz.au!anthony@uunet.UU.NET (Anthony Lee) > >... always see soldiers using M16 (and AK47) spraying > >bullets in all directions. I feel that it is just a waste of bullets > >because they are only doing it to keep the enemies down and in many cases > >hitting unfortunate civilans who happened to be nearby. > > Combat is immensely wasteful of munitions, and always has been. The vast > majority of all bullets fired, even in the days of bolt-action rifles, > were to make the other guy keep his head down and to interfere with his > operations in general. Precision marksmanship is rarely seen in combat > except when specialists like trained snipers are involved. > > >The question I proposed is that if in any conflict both sides were only > >given semiautomatic weapons then I feel the chances for civilan cauasilties > >would be lower. > > The chances for civilian casualties would be still lower if both sides were > armed only with rocks and clubs. However, it wouldn't be very popular with > the soldiers. Fully automatic weapons are extremely popular with the troops > for two reasons. One is emergencies: when ambushed or otherwise caught off > guard, being able to reply with *lots* of fire can be a lifesaver. The other > is training: really expert soldiers, e.g. the British Army at the start of > WW1, can get astonishing results with bolt-action rifles, but ill-trained > militia, e.g. most of the folks involved in Lebanon, fight better when > weapons are easier to use. You will find very few soldiers displaying any > enthusiasm for reducing the effectiveness of their weapons in hopes of > protecting stray civilians. > There's no doubt that automatics provide troops with a psychological benefit- there was a classic study (so classic Ive forgotten the authors) in WWII that showed that rifleman almost never fired their weapons; they felt powerless to control the combat situation. ON the other hand those with BARs (a .306 20 round box mag fed LMG) almost always fired and felt as if they could dictate aspects of the fight. Anyone know of this study? I'd like a copy of the original, if possible. Also in simple firepower terms, autos are superior in firefights. When US forces first fought in RVN, their M-14s (.308 semi-autos) were no match for AK-47s. M-14s can be converted to auto, but the recoil takes most people's face off. This was one of the reasons for pushing the M-16 in to service. For those who wish to read of the fascinating development of the m-16 and all its details try a chapter in J. Wacjman and S. Mackenzie "The social shaping of technology" The other advantage of autos is that they can be switched to semi-auto to conserve ammo. Note that the M-16A2 has a three shot burst feature (yep, no spray n pray) which is thought to maximise hits and conserve ammo. Regarding Henry's comment that the function of most fire is to keep bad people's heads down, that's absolutely true. The doctrine behind the AK-47 is exactly that- pin them down while you take their position. It's intersting that Australian troops used a version of the FN in RVN- no automatic. They had M-60's for LMGs and I don't recall their being great complaints of imbalances of firepower- although they rarely were out of range of supporting artillery. __ _______________________W_(Not Drowning...Waving!)___________________________ Perry Morrison Ph.D, V.D (and scar). SNAIL: Maths, Stats and Computing Science, UNE, Armidale, 2351, Australia. perrym@neumann.une.oz or pmorriso@gara.une.oz Ph:067 73 2302