meirose@BRL.MIL (06/17/89)
From: meirose@BRL.MIL >Hypothetically, if Y percent of hits with 'honest' ammo results in dead >enemy, and X percent results in disabling injuries, then you have >100-X-Y percent of the enemy casulties who will be patched up and return >to battle, probably rather angry at having been hit in the first place. >If, on the other hand, 'illegal' ammo increases either X or Y or both, >fewer enemy casulties will end up back in the lines against you, which >improves the chances of you and your men surviving. > >If you were an infantry commander, which would you rather use??? If I were an infantry commander, I would definitely prefer the use of 'honest' ammo. Whenever you kill an enemy soldier, you neutralize one soldier. When you wound a soldier, you neutralize him, and the one or two other soldiers that try to patch him up or carry him to an aid station. A wounded soldier also requires more money/material to remove from the battlefield. The wounded soldier requires an ambulance/medivac, surgeons and hospital space. Another side of the argument is the morale side. IMHO, when one of your compatriots is wounded it takes some of your concentration away from the fire fight. Your worried about him or your trying to get him clear. If the soldier is killed, there are two main reactions: fear and anger, and you where afraid before the death. Both of these arguments apply to a single engagement/battle, but if there is wide spread use of 'illegal' ammo on one side, and if the ammo makes a large difference in the immediate kill rate, these arguments would make a difference in the overall war. (please excuse any impression of 'cold hearted attitude') Disclaimer: These opinions are mine (at least it tastes like my foot 8-) ) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Meirose | Nuclear Winter gives a whole Army Material Systems Analysis Activity | new meaning to the phrase: Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD | "When Hell freezes over" -------------------------------------------------------------------------
allen%codon1.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Edward Allen;345 Mulford;x2-9025) (06/20/89)
From: allen%codon1.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Edward Allen;345 Mulford;x2-9025) The person advocating the use of the most effective but illegal by convention weapons such as explosive bullets forgets a factor when he asks rhetorically whether small unit commanders would want to have them. If the enemy takes the legality issue seriously and captures said officer or his men, it will go hard on them. I remember accounts of WWI incidents in which men armed with saw toothed bayonets, considered to be an unethical weapon, were stuck with their own bayonets as punishment by the enemy after capture. It depends on who you are fighting, but if "honorable combat" is part of their ethical system, as it has been for western powers for some time now, its to your advantage to live and fight within the rules if you want hope of living through capture to reach the prison camp and eventual repatriation. If pure combat effectiveness were the only rule as that previous poster suggested, we'd have seen the use of nukes since Nagasaki. There are other considerations, tactical, strategic, and moral. As with the debate on fighter armaments and tactics, the technology must be viewed within the larger framework to see how and why it's used or not used. Ed "my, that started to sound like a soapbox speech" Allen (allen@enzyme.berkeley.edu)