View Single Post
Old April 26, 2012, 01:43 PM   #11
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
Shifts in thinking, over time...

Due to experience gained in war, and technology improvements.

WWII saw the employment of several different tactical philosophies, some of which prooved out, others were dropped. Not everything the losers did was wrong, nor was all the winners did, right.

Before that war, the US saw the machinegun (heavy/med) as support for the rifle squad, and included the BAR (machinegun, light) as integeral support.

The Germans saw the rifle squad as support for the machinegun (med/light).

One thing the US did before, and during the early part of the war was train soldiers to shoot when they had a target. Suppressive fire was the job of the machinegun, only. Actual combat prooved this to be poor doctrine. Veterans would teach replacements to shoot anything that might hide an enemy, and shoot it often...especially in dense environments like jungles...

With the overall shift to select fire rifles and lighter cartridges in the decades after WWII, the benefit of massive firepower is clear. Each soldier with an assault rifle has a light machine gun in their hands, for as long as they can keep the gun cool enough to run, and the ammo holds out.

Training is key, early on it was found that soldiers in the field would almost always go full auto, and leave them there. Today, from what I hear, that's not the case, or not like it was.

Since we can have it, and at times it is very useful, we should have it. However, it is vital that soldiers be trained on when the drawbacks to full auto fire outweigh the benefits. Otherwise, I think it can do more harm, than good.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.04414 seconds with 8 queries