Quote:
Originally Posted by banjomike
The article mentioned something that was curious. It said the enemy could attack our soldiers from a longer range than any of our weapons.
Does that mean the Taliban have the Carl Gustaf already? Or are they using Stingers or some equivalent with a longer range? Or do they have artillery? That mention left a lot unsaid.
I don't have any prelims with the announcement of the Carl Gustaf. The purpose of war is to force the opposing side into capitulation, not to kill. Many wars have begun and ended with no deaths; only a show of force and the willingness to use force was enough.
The use of siege is one of the oldest means of capitulation. Most sieges ended with a surrounded city just giving up with no bloodshed except for the mayor or some official. Many resulted in no deaths at all. The citizens just left, and let the besieging army to have the town.
|
They are using heavy machine guns which can easily outrange the M4, which is basically a 150 yard gun. The US military went to the .223 cartridge with it's limited range in 1963 because it made sense for jungle warfare. Short range, but lots of rounds. When we went to Afghanistan we did not adjust, even though any good rifleman knows the 3 T's: task, terrain, target.
Soldiers should have a range of options, from 9mm to .223 to .308 to .338 to .50 BMG. Not to mention innovations like 6.5 Grendel or 6.5 Creedmoor. But that all costs money. The Chinese have developed their 5.8 cartridge, and the Russians their AN-94 rifle. The US soldier is still stuck w/ 50 year old technology which has been further emasculated by sawing off the barrel to 14.5 inches.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
