| From: | David Hinkley <dhinkley@***.ORG> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [OT] Weapon damage (was Re: 3G3) |
| Date: | Sun, 28 Dec 1997 10:20:05 +0000 |
>
> British Army experience was that, for the majority of shooters, the
> 5.56mm L85A1 was more accurate in the hands of soldiers than the
> 7.62mm L1A1. Whether that was a function of weapon design,
> ballistics or of ergonomics is still debated. Adding the x4 SUIT /
> SUSAT to the rifle further increases accuracy at most ranges for
> both weapons.
What is the x4 SUIT or SUSAT, some sort of telescopic sight?
>
>
> Sounds similar to the APWT (Annual Personal Weapon Test). Targets
> appear at 100, 200 and 300 metres, targets usually fall when hit
> (IIRC some phases are several rounds per target), exposures are <5
> seconds. Since we went to the L85, the ranges are typically longer,
> fewer 100m and more 300m shots. The test is shot standing, kneeling,
> prone and in a fire trench, and some phases are shot in a
> respirator.
That is about the same, we did not have a requirement to fire for
qualification while waering a gas mask. Good thing as the filters on
a M17A1 makes using the sights on a M-16 imposible. They did require
we familarize with a gas mask, and they had a method for "aimed
fire". It was a modified prone, you laid over the rifle such that the
center line of thr rifle barrel lined up with the centerline of your
head and body. You used both eyes and moved your rifle and body
together. It was clumsy, hard to master (I never did) and of
questionable use off the range.
When I was in, the qualification course included a 25 meter target
that gave me fits, it was down and to the side from the rest of the
targets, and was only exposed for a short time. In the early spring,
the olive targets were hard to see against the newly grown brush and
that target tended to be the last one I checked.
[SNIP]
>
> >> If you've got unalerted enemy in the open, don't play sniper, call
> >> in mortar fire.
> >>
> >Only if the Artillery is busy with someone elses fire mission.
>
> This is why our battalions have organic mortar platoons, and the
> lead units in an advance have MFCs attached with mortar sections
> (two tubes) on call. Artillery was expected to be rare, but we
> learned from the Falklands the value of having mortar fire on hand
> for the leading elements.
I had a Weapons Platoon (2 TWO missile systems and 3 81mm Mortars all
on modified M113 carriers) for a while. The units I was in tended to
try the artillery first (bigger bang and it does not use up mortar
shells that will be needed when you can't get the artillery on the
horn) then us. Then the U.S. Army tended to have alot of artillery
attached to mech units in Europe.
David Hinkley
dhinkley@***.org
